Irony doesn't save the insult. Being polite so that the underlying merits get clouded over................ is never intended.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Who are you "dealing" with? Idiots don't understand irony, so its appreciation is limited to those reading the irony? I note that "Irony is always welcome" is a defensible position, but "when dealing with idiots" is certainly not ironic, not welcome to oh so many ((Just because I enjoy the use of the term doesn't negate recognizing I'm in the minority)) readers who don't get the irony. Ha, ha.......kinda ironic that........ or is it a necessary condition?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

How hard can it be to post information with out becoming personal about it?

And, being totally serious now, I have been for years facetiously describing as a group, those who are saying we are in imminent danger from global warming, as "alarm ringers". Is that considered an attack? Or against the rules somehow?

I'm going to stop in any case, and if it has contributed to the animosity, I apologize.

"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"

Censorship is a tricky thing, especially when it starts getting into judgment calls and gray areas and flipping of quarters and rolling of dice.

I should resurrect the rule about not getting involved until the personal crap rolls over into another page of a given thread, when it dominates discussions, etc. The occasional stuff isn't a problem; when it becomes the rule rather than the exception, then it is defeating discussion in and of itself. Or that's my opinion, anyway. Maybe I should gin up a hockey stick chart or something.

A frend uv mine had the idea to start uzing the N word constantly (he'z wite) on the theory that it woud take away its power to offend. I dont no if he'z implemented hiz plan yet. Therez a sertain lojik to it, but, considering he'z a Trump voter...

Along the same line uv thot - wut if the offending memberz are required to begin each reply post with a few sentensez basicly saying 'you are a complete idiot' and include similar derogitoryz in every sentens. The insults woud soon bekum tedious & ineffective and eventually the offenderz woud realize it just makes them look petty. (unless they are idiots)

Pyrrho wrote:Censorship is a tricky thing, especially when it starts getting into judgment calls and gray areas and flipping of quarters and rolling of dice.

......It depends on what "rule" you use. Simple Rule: everything you mention is.... or is not.... subject to censor. And who ever thinks you even could be "consistent?"

this is the second time you put the subject of AGW on moderation. "To me" the comments were only becoming repetitive and tedious. Just more grounds on which to censor? The name calling and personal attacks?----pretty innocuous,..... but then, I am a bastard.

Pros and Cons......... to all we do.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?